Cadence advice

DannyJames
DannyJames Posts: 76
edited August 2013 in Road beginners
Coming from a single speed mountain bike i tend to struggle with gears, not changing them but knowing when to shift down and not keep grinding. I have put a cadence computer on the bike as i would like to try spinning more and standing up less. Done a local ride today quite hilly and managed to keep the cadence mostly between 80 - 90 (apart from a couple of the big hills) by changing to lower gears. I was using Strava and got a fair few personal bests, and it felt quicker easier but as a newby just wondering if I'm on the right tracks it felt better?

I know as newcomer to road bikes i should probably being just enjoying the ride but been able to keep a better cadence rather than grinding tough gears is something I'm interested in to get out of the hard gear habit.
«1

Comments

  • Grill
    Grill Posts: 5,610
    It's different for everyone, but general consensus is spinning is winning. Get yourself to 90-100 and you'll be laughing.
    English Cycles V3 | Cervelo P5 | Cervelo T4 | Trek Domane Koppenberg
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    Using a higher cadence(85-100) is where you'll most likely end up as you ride over the years. For me, I just ended up that way without really trying. I read an article once that talked about hign cadences and it proposed the theory that high cadences are NOT the most efficient way to pedal. Best overall efficiency, apparently, comes at around 50-60 RPM's. However, because the brain has a say in things, for some reason it seems to like higher cadences. That's really a very long story made very short. Anyway, you'll most likely end up higher without really trying.
  • diamonddog
    diamonddog Posts: 3,426
    Grill wrote:
    It's different for everyone, but general consensus is spinning is winning. Get yourself to 90-100 and you'll be laughing.
    +1 for this^
  • pinno
    pinno Posts: 51,460
    dennisn wrote:
    Using a higher cadence(85-100) is where you'll most likely end up as you ride over the years. For me, I just ended up that way without really trying. I read an article once that talked about hign cadences and it proposed the theory that high cadences are NOT the most efficient way to pedal. Best overall efficiency, apparently, comes at around 50-60 RPM's. However, because the brain has a say in things, for some reason it seems to like higher cadences. That's really a very long story made very short. Anyway, you'll most likely end up higher without really trying.

    There is a bit more to it than this. Higher cadence means less lactic acid build up but you need more fitness to sustain it.
    2 years ago, after nearly 3 weeks of racing and on a rolling course, Cadel Evans won the TT in the TdF with an average cadence of 104!
    Gears are a 'torque multiplication device' rather like a gearbox in a car. The faster you can pedal, the greater the speed but less resistance. Less resistance to the pedal stroke - 20nm as opposed to 30nm for a poor off the top of the head example, but you know what i mean. You can do the maths - 30nm at 60 rpm or 20nm at 90 rpm? Easier to sustain in terms of strength but less easy to sustain because of energy consumption.
    The faster you pedal, the more efficiently the muscle is consuming glycogen and oxygen. The less resistance in the pedal stroke, the slower the lactic acid build up. Lactic acid build up is also dependant on the type of energy you consume, the terrain and the amount of oxygen you can absorb in terms of cardio-vascular fitenss and efficiency. It is not an exact science unless you have the luxury of the pro's with VO2 max machines and loads of testing data to see how your body reacts to different loads/foods/training etc etc.
    I use rollers to stay loose, maintain fitness and to practice pedalling quickly but efficiently. My average roller ride is 96rpm, my average hilly ride is approx. 84rpm and my average flat ride is somewhere in between. I am trying to level it out and I take note of my average cadence per ride, per terrain.
    On the OP Diamonddog: as a baseline, the average cadence you managed on a hilly ride of sorts was pretty good and I don't think you have anything to worry about as dennisn says, it will naturally get higher especially if you concentrate on icadence initially more than road speed.

    Hope that helps.
    seanoconn - gruagach craic!
  • samsbike
    samsbike Posts: 942
    I had a chat with the bikewhisperer today and they recommended a cadence of around 85-95rpm
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    samsbike wrote:
    I had a chat with the bikewhisperer today and they recommended a cadence of around 85-95rpm

    for what?
  • smoggysteve
    smoggysteve Posts: 2,909
    If you watched Chris Froome on Mont Ventoux. He just sat there and spun uber fast while blowing away everyone near him. He even used a 27 tooth low gear to spin his way up while others suffered in a higher gear at a lower cadence.
  • Bozman
    Bozman Posts: 2,518
    Many moons ago I was told that the mid 80s was the unwritten rule.

    I'd never measured mine until I got a garmin and bugger me it was roughly that. I hadn't aimed for it my body naturally arrived at it but it did increase slightly when I swapped to a compact. A lot of folk seem to spin more these days but after 105 my legs don't seem to enjoy it, ticker's fine, I just find it uncomfortable.
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    SmoggySteve wrote:
    If you watched Chris Froome on Mont Ventoux. He just sat there and spun uber fast while blowing away everyone near him. He even used a 27 tooth low gear to spin his way up while others suffered in a higher gear at a lower cadence.

    If only the others had thought of that, eh....
  • smoggysteve
    smoggysteve Posts: 2,909
    Imposter wrote:
    SmoggySteve wrote:
    If you watched Chris Froome on Mont Ventoux. He just sat there and spun uber fast while blowing away everyone near him. He even used a 27 tooth low gear to spin his way up while others suffered in a higher gear at a lower cadence.

    If only the others had thought of that, eh....

    That kind of the point. No one did. They stuck to a higher gear and he chose what worked for him, albeit a lower gear than would conventionally be used. And he kept going at a higher cadence as the rest fell away
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    SmoggySteve wrote:
    Imposter wrote:
    SmoggySteve wrote:
    If you watched Chris Froome on Mont Ventoux. He just sat there and spun uber fast while blowing away everyone near him. He even used a 27 tooth low gear to spin his way up while others suffered in a higher gear at a lower cadence.

    If only the others had thought of that, eh....

    That kind of the point. No one did. They stuck to a higher gear and he chose what worked for him, albeit a lower gear than would conventionally be used. And he kept going at a higher cadence as the rest fell away

    So you don't think Froome's marginally better sustainable power output or w/kg had anything to do with it then? All down to the gearing?

    27/28/32t sprockets are not a new phenomenon on alpine stages, incidentally. They've been in use for decades. You still have to pedal them though...
  • smoggysteve
    smoggysteve Posts: 2,909
    No one argued it was new. It was at that one stage, cos he never really repeated it did he? That others were pulling a higher gear and people like Contador and Quitana couldnt sustain it. Are you suggesting he is that much better than them two or was gear choice and cadence not a contributing factor? Yes he won the Tour but he was not as dominant in the mountains over them two as it is suggested. Most his time over them was taken on TTs
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    SmoggySteve wrote:
    Are you suggesting he is that much better than them two or was gear choice and cadence not a contributing factor?

    I seriously doubt if gear choice and cadence is what got him the yellow, if that's what you are asking. Do you know what gearing the other two were using, incidentally?

    People used to talk the same kind of bollox about Armstrong's cadence. His actual cadence was not appreciably higher than any other rider, but his coaches used the cadence thing as a way of explaining his performances. I'm not suggesting anything similar of Froome, but I am suggesting that cadence itself is largely irrelevant. Sustainable power is where it is at, regardless.

    If it was as simple as just spinning an easy gear, then we would all be able to ride up there alongside Froome and the others - but we can't.
  • smoggysteve
    smoggysteve Posts: 2,909
    Imposter wrote:
    SmoggySteve wrote:
    Are you suggesting he is that much better than them two or was gear choice and cadence not a contributing factor?

    I seriously doubt if gear choice and cadence is what got him the yellow, if that's what you are asking. Do you know what gearing the other two were using, incidentally?

    See, I knew you would step into that bollox. I am talking about 1 single stage. One where he won it by sitting tight and spinning in a lower gear. It matter not what happened in the rest of the tour. That is besides the point. Without knowing what gear ratio they had exactly, you could see he was pedaling like a mad man when he blasted towards the summit. The others were pedaling nowhere near as fast as him. Common sense says they were in a higher gear if they were pedaling slower and being left behind.

    Getting back on track with the thread, its to show that regardless of how good you are, spinning in a lower gear and a high cadence can be more beneficial and more efficient. And if you use a higher gear and tire quicker that is not efficient.
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    SmoggySteve wrote:
    Common sense says they were in a higher gear if they were pedaling slower and being left behind.

    Common sense would not suggest anything of the sort. It might suggest that they could not match his effort level, nothing more.
  • stueys
    stueys Posts: 1,332
    Imposter wrote:
    SmoggySteve wrote:
    Common sense says they were in a higher gear if they were pedaling slower and being left behind.

    Common sense would not suggest anything of the sort. It might suggest that they could not match his effort level, nothing more.

    Yep, the pros will have all ridden the key stages before the tour started and worked out their tactics dependent on their own strengths/weaknesses. Sadly races don't always follow your plan....
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    SmoggySteve wrote:
    Imposter wrote:
    SmoggySteve wrote:
    Are you suggesting he is that much better than them two or was gear choice and cadence not a contributing factor?

    I seriously doubt if gear choice and cadence is what got him the yellow, if that's what you are asking. Do you know what gearing the other two were using, incidentally?

    Getting back on track with the thread, its to show that regardless of how good you are, spinning in a lower gear and a high cadence can be more beneficial and more efficient. And if you use a higher gear and tire quicker that is not efficient.

    Seems to me that I recently read some "research", if you will, that talked about a lower cadence(50-70)being more efficient than a higher one. Of course Triathletes adopted this in a minute, but that's just the way they are. Anyway, it
    talked about requiring less oxygen at lower cadences and blah, blah, blah. In any case the arguments for and against BOTH sides of the coin are most likely not written in stone just yet.
    My take on the whole thing. Not worth worrying about. Do what you are comfortable doing. Whether you're a masher or spinner you'll get where you're going.
  • pinno
    pinno Posts: 51,460
    Froome's fast pedalling was probably practised like hell and could only be done through killing himself in training. To pedal in that gear (whatever gear was), he needed phenominal fitness. I am sure AC would have pedalled with the same cadence if he could have.
    seanoconn - gruagach craic!
  • Monty Dog
    Monty Dog Posts: 20,614
    Yup, all down to specific, adaptive training rather than looking at cadence in isolation. The whole high-cadence thing was obscured by the bollox spouted by Carmichael, Coyle et el as a smokescreen for miracle boys amazing climbing abilites. I don't believe that 50-70 is deemed more 'efficient' as it runs contrary to accepted sports science - higher cadence puts more load on CV system, but provided you don't exceed your threshold, then you should be able to sustain it for longer.
    Make mine an Italian, with Campagnolo on the side..
  • DavidJB
    DavidJB Posts: 2,019
    Average joe != Froome.

    I ride between 95-100 and started off riding at 75! You'll naturally bring up your cadence. Once every 2 weeks have a 'spin' session on the bike where you try to stay above 105 cadence at first it will feel like your legs are going to fly off but after 20 minutes you'll be used to it and it will bring up your natural cadence after a couple of months.
  • DavidJB
    DavidJB Posts: 2,019
    dennisn wrote:
    SmoggySteve wrote:
    Imposter wrote:
    SmoggySteve wrote:
    Are you suggesting he is that much better than them two or was gear choice and cadence not a contributing factor?

    I seriously doubt if gear choice and cadence is what got him the yellow, if that's what you are asking. Do you know what gearing the other two were using, incidentally?

    Getting back on track with the thread, its to show that regardless of how good you are, spinning in a lower gear and a high cadence can be more beneficial and more efficient. And if you use a higher gear and tire quicker that is not efficient.

    Seems to me that I recently read some "research", if you will, that talked about a lower cadence(50-70)being more efficient than a higher one. Of course Triathletes adopted this in a minute, but that's just the way they are. Anyway, it
    talked about requiring less oxygen at lower cadences and blah, blah, blah. In any case the arguments for and against BOTH sides of the coin are most likely not written in stone just yet.
    My take on the whole thing. Not worth worrying about. Do what you are comfortable doing. Whether you're a masher or spinner you'll get where you're going.

    Fine maybe that's true but in a road race if you're riding at 60 cadence you're going to get instantly dropped when the pace changes!
  • slowbike
    slowbike Posts: 8,498
    DavidJB wrote:
    Fine maybe that's true but in a road race if you're riding at 60 cadence you're going to get instantly dropped when the pace changes!
    If I was in a road race with a cadence of 100+ I'd get dropped when the pace changes ... For me a comfortable pace is upper 80s and if I want to go faster I have to drop the gear to low 80's and accelerate.
    Comfortable cadence changes - at the beginning of the year I was most comfortable at low 80's and drop into 70's to accelerate.
    I just can't (yet) put enough power down when spinning fast to go much faster ...
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    DavidJB wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    SmoggySteve wrote:
    Imposter wrote:
    SmoggySteve wrote:
    Are you suggesting he is that much better than them two or was gear choice and cadence not a contributing factor?

    I seriously doubt if gear choice and cadence is what got him the yellow, if that's what you are asking. Do you know what gearing the other two were using, incidentally?

    Getting back on track with the thread, its to show that regardless of how good you are, spinning in a lower gear and a high cadence can be more beneficial and more efficient. And if you use a higher gear and tire quicker that is not efficient.

    Seems to me that I recently read some "research", if you will, that talked about a lower cadence(50-70)being more efficient than a higher one. Of course Triathletes adopted this in a minute, but that's just the way they are. Anyway, it
    talked about requiring less oxygen at lower cadences and blah, blah, blah. In any case the arguments for and against BOTH sides of the coin are most likely not written in stone just yet.
    My take on the whole thing. Not worth worrying about. Do what you are comfortable doing. Whether you're a masher or spinner you'll get where you're going.

    Fine maybe that's true but in a road race if you're riding at 60 cadence you're going to get instantly dropped when the pace changes!

    Not sure it's correct to make a blanket statement like that. People are different. They all have different capabilities.Today's truth is often debunked tomorrow and even yesterday's ideas, which have been out of favor for quite some time, can come back to life.
  • pinno
    pinno Posts: 51,460
    Didn't hink this would kick off like this.

    Don't wait for me, i'm off to get some popcorn...
    seanoconn - gruagach craic!
  • Mr Will
    Mr Will Posts: 216
    dennisn wrote:
    SmoggySteve wrote:
    Imposter wrote:
    SmoggySteve wrote:
    Are you suggesting he is that much better than them two or was gear choice and cadence not a contributing factor?

    I seriously doubt if gear choice and cadence is what got him the yellow, if that's what you are asking. Do you know what gearing the other two were using, incidentally?

    Getting back on track with the thread, its to show that regardless of how good you are, spinning in a lower gear and a high cadence can be more beneficial and more efficient. And if you use a higher gear and tire quicker that is not efficient.

    Seems to me that I recently read some "research", if you will, that talked about a lower cadence(50-70)being more efficient than a higher one. Of course Triathletes adopted this in a minute, but that's just the way they are. Anyway, it
    talked about requiring less oxygen at lower cadences and blah, blah, blah. In any case the arguments for and against BOTH sides of the coin are most likely not written in stone just yet.
    My take on the whole thing. Not worth worrying about. Do what you are comfortable doing. Whether you're a masher or spinner you'll get where you're going.

    Efficient != Effective.

    If you want to ride 60 miles, the most efficient way to do it is likely low cadence, low effort, low speed - touring style. If you want to do it in three hours then that's another matter and high cadence will allow you to sustain a high power output for longer than a low cadence (but you'll still burn more calories than doing it the slow way).
    2010 Cannondale CAAD9 Tiagra
  • sub55
    sub55 Posts: 1,025
    Mr Will wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    SmoggySteve wrote:
    Imposter wrote:
    SmoggySteve wrote:
    Are you suggesting he is that much better than them two or was gear choice and cadence not a contributing factor?

    I seriously doubt if gear choice and cadence is what got him the yellow, if that's what you are asking. Do you know what gearing the other two were using, incidentally?

    Getting back on track with the thread, its to show that regardless of how good you are, spinning in a lower gear and a high cadence can be more beneficial and more efficient. And if you use a higher gear and tire quicker that is not efficient.

    Seems to me that I recently read some "research", if you will, that talked about a lower cadence(50-70)being more efficient than a higher one. Of course Triathletes adopted this in a minute, but that's just the way they are. Anyway, it
    talked about requiring less oxygen at lower cadences and blah, blah, blah. In any case the arguments for and against BOTH sides of the coin are most likely not written in stone just yet.
    My take on the whole thing. Not worth worrying about. Do what you are comfortable doing. Whether you're a masher or spinner you'll get where you're going.

    Efficient != Effective.

    If you want to ride 60 miles, the most efficient way to do it is likely low cadence, low effort, low speed - touring style. If you want to do it in three hours then that's another matter and high cadence will allow you to sustain a high power output for longer than a low cadence (but you'll still burn more calories than doing it the slow way).


    complete and utter tosh
    constantly reavalueating the situation and altering the perceived parameters accordingly
  • Monty Dog
    Monty Dog Posts: 20,614
    You will tire the muscles more quickly at low cadence / high power rather than higher cadence / lesser power, that's why riders train for higher cadence. If road racing it also helps to have a good 'pick-up' i.e. the ability to accelerate without changing gear. I only know one rider than can manage low cadences effectively in road races - he's an absolute monster on the bike and UK Vet TT champ.
    Make mine an Italian, with Campagnolo on the side..
  • stueys
    stueys Posts: 1,332
    sub55 wrote:
    Mr Will wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    SmoggySteve wrote:
    Imposter wrote:
    SmoggySteve wrote:
    Are you suggesting he is that much better than them two or was gear choice and cadence not a contributing factor?

    I seriously doubt if gear choice and cadence is what got him the yellow, if that's what you are asking. Do you know what gearing the other two were using, incidentally?

    Getting back on track with the thread, its to show that regardless of how good you are, spinning in a lower gear and a high cadence can be more beneficial and more efficient. And if you use a higher gear and tire quicker that is not efficient.

    Seems to me that I recently read some "research", if you will, that talked about a lower cadence(50-70)being more efficient than a higher one. Of course Triathletes adopted this in a minute, but that's just the way they are. Anyway, it
    talked about requiring less oxygen at lower cadences and blah, blah, blah. In any case the arguments for and against BOTH sides of the coin are most likely not written in stone just yet.
    My take on the whole thing. Not worth worrying about. Do what you are comfortable doing. Whether you're a masher or spinner you'll get where you're going.

    Efficient != Effective.

    If you want to ride 60 miles, the most efficient way to do it is likely low cadence, low effort, low speed - touring style. If you want to do it in three hours then that's another matter and high cadence will allow you to sustain a high power output for longer than a low cadence (but you'll still burn more calories than doing it the slow way).


    complete and utter tosh

    Not entirely, studies have shown that a higher cadence has more oxygen debt, ie more energy rquired. It's irrelevant though given we all carry many '000's of calories stashed as fat and about 2000 stashed as glycogen, the extra burn a higher cadence takes isn't really relevant. Tired legs are though. The positive of a higher cadence is that it shifts the load onto your CV system and away from your muscles.

    Personally I spin at 100-105 on the flat and 85-95 when climbing, unless the gradient goes north of 10% when my cadence starts to drop slightly. I trained on a turbo over winter to lift my cadence and it now feels very natural for me.
    I think it's whatever works for you though as long as you aren't grinding along at 50-60 rpm everywhere.
  • sub55
    sub55 Posts: 1,025
    Stueys wrote:
    sub55 wrote:
    Mr Will wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    SmoggySteve wrote:
    Imposter wrote:
    SmoggySteve wrote:
    Are you suggesting he is that much better than them two or was gear choice and cadence not a contributing factor?

    I seriously doubt if gear choice and cadence is what got him the yellow, if that's what you are asking. Do you know what gearing the other two were using, incidentally?

    Getting back on track with the thread, its to show that regardless of how good you are, spinning in a lower gear and a high cadence can be more beneficial and more efficient. And if you use a higher gear and tire quicker that is not efficient.

    Seems to me that I recently read some "research", if you will, that talked about a lower cadence(50-70)being more efficient than a higher one. Of course Triathletes adopted this in a minute, but that's just the way they are. Anyway, it
    talked about requiring less oxygen at lower cadences and blah, blah, blah. In any case the arguments for and against BOTH sides of the coin are most likely not written in stone just yet.
    My take on the whole thing. Not worth worrying about. Do what you are comfortable doing. Whether you're a masher or spinner you'll get where you're going.

    Efficient != Effective.

    If you want to ride 60 miles, the most efficient way to do it is likely low cadence, low effort, low speed - touring style. If you want to do it in three hours then that's another matter and high cadence will allow you to sustain a high power output for longer than a low cadence (but you'll still burn more calories than doing it the slow way).


    complete and utter tosh

    Not entirely, studies have shown that a higher cadence has more oxygen debt, ie more energy rquired. It's irrelevant though given we all carry many '000's of calories stashed as fat and about 2000 stashed as glycogen, the extra burn a higher cadence takes isn't really relevant. Tired legs are though. The positive of a higher cadence is that it shifts the load onto your CV system and away from your muscles.

    Personally I spin at 100-105 on the flat and 85-95 when climbing, unless the gradient goes north of 10% when my cadence starts to drop slightly. I trained on a turbo over winter to lift my cadence and it now feels very natural for me.
    I think it's whatever works for you though as long as you aren't grinding along at 50-60 rpm everywhere.


    No mate, the statement i highlighted is completely utter tosh. The power required increases by the cube of the speed. Therefore the faster you go ,the power requirements and the calories burned increase expodencetially .
    Thats not to say you wont have to refuel mid ride, but given a fixed distance or time ,you will always burn more calories the harder you ride.


    As for cadence , people quote it in terms of RPM , which doesn't mean anything unless you know crank length .
    Think in terms of foot speed for a better understanding . Personally i'm a firm believer in the fact it doesn't matter. Get your crank length right in relation to your leg length , cadence doesn't matter ,when you feel the need to change gear , press the button. End of.
    constantly reavalueating the situation and altering the perceived parameters accordingly
  • stueys
    stueys Posts: 1,332
    sub55 wrote:


    No mate, the statement i highlighted is completely utter tosh. The power required increases by the cube of the speed. Therefore the faster you go ,the power requirements and the calories burned increase expodencetially .
    Thats not to say you wont have to refuel mid ride, but given a fixed distance or time ,you will always burn more calories the harder you ride.


    As for cadence , people quote it in terms of RPM , which doesn't mean anything unless you know crank length .
    Think in terms of foot speed for a better understanding . Personally i'm a firm believer in the fact it doesn't matter. Get your crank length right in relation to your leg length , cadence doesn't matter ,when you feel the need to change gear , press the button. End of.

    Sorry, that wasn't the point I was making. You're assuming that the extra energy used to go faster is the same whether you push harder or pedal faster. I don't think thats true, we all have a 'setting' where we are most efficient. the study i refered to referencef muscles working modt efficiently at a slightly slower cadence (I think the study I read references references 70, at some point I'll try to find it) but that comes at the costm of more work on your muscles.

    It doesn't really matter, our summary is both the same. Ride at whatever works better for you.

Categories